Archive for July, 2012

That’s right. The only thing Harry Reid loves more than Viagra is sexually molesting boys. I’ve got that from a “very reliable source.” The source says that the boys are brought to him from Mexico, and Harry Reid has prevented any effort to stop illegal immigration because he wouldn’t have any more boys to molest. But of course I can’t tell you who that source is.

Sounds solid. Mitt Romney, who’s been running for political office for 20 years now, decided he’d gamble those prospects and risk time in a federal pen for tax evasion in order to save a few million dollars that he doesn’t need.

And he made this decision year after year, for 10 years.

By the way, some random guy on the Internet told me Obama was born in Kenya. Now, do I know that’s true? Well, I’m not certain. But let me just toss it out there.

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said, in reference to George Romney’s standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Saying he had “no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,” Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

“Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” Reid recounted the person as saying.

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years!Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?

“You guys have said his wealth is $250 million,” Reid went on. “Not a chance in the world. It’s a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don’t pay taxes for 10 years when you’re making millions and millions of dollars.”

No surprise that Reid would smear Romney so casually. He specializes in these tactics during presidential campaigns. In 2008, he made more noise about McCain’s temper being a sign of possible derangement than any other major Democrat. (He also insisted that he couldn’t stand McCain as part and parcel of the demonization effort, even though the two had been known to socialize.) He’s an unusually nasty character, even by normal political standards, when he wants to be; gratuitously accusing George Romney of being disappointed in his son is simply S.O.P. But he does have a strategy here: Pull an accusation of criminality straight out of his ass and hope it gets enough media play that Romney feels obliged to respond. Either Mitt will start to sweat and release his returns, as Democrats have demanded, in order to disprove Reid’s charge or he’ll sit tight and the smear will circulate online, with Romney’s refusal to disclose the documents taken as “proof” that Reid is right. In that respect, it’s not that different from Birtherism. It just so happens that you’ve got the Senate majority leader pushing this, not some commenter at dKos or wherever.

Harry Reid’s now obviously proven child molestation aside, this universe has something to take real “pride” (maybe even “pedophile pride” in): there aren’t very many possible worlds in which an administration that invoked executive privilege to avoid providing any records over the Fast and Furious scandal in which guns were literally sent by the Obama administration into the hands of Mexican drug cartel killers would turn around and say that Mitt Romney’s not releasing his personal records amount to “proof” of tax evasion. Because by that standard Barack Obama is clearly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached with every single Democrat voting guilty.

It’s a fascinating world in which a lie becomes the truth and then that truth becomes a lie all over again.

“I don’t think the burden should be on me,” Reid said. “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn’t he release his tax returns?”

You see how that works? I make an accusation devoid of any evidence, and the burden of proof should fall upon the one accused to prove himself innocent of the accusation. And that from the Senate Majority Leader of the United States Senate!!!

Then there’s the blatant hypocrisy factor to go along with the fascist factor. Because the same party that is using the above tactic is allowing Barack Obama to use executive privilege from answering any questions whatsoever about how 2,000 guns from his programs ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartel killers who murdered two US law enforcement officers with them.

The only report we’ve got about Fast and Furious – because Obama sure as hell aint investigating it – gives us this:

According to a copy of the report obtained Monday by The Times, the investigators said their findings are “the best information available as of now” about the flawed gun operation that last month led to Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. being found in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over subpoenaed documents.

Two more final reports, they said, will deal with “the devastating failure of supervision and leadership” at the Department of Justice and an “unprecedented obstruction of the [congressional] investigation by the highest levels of the Justice Department, including the attorney general himself.”

No one, to my knowledge, ever accused Richard Nixon of being a Watergate burglar. His crime was in trying to cover it up; rather like what Obama is doing now. And of course the fact that Barack Obama has declared executive privilege and covered up the evidence PROVES he is a criminal and Harry Reid should be busy setting up Obama’s trial rather than making idiot statements about Mitt Romney.

But why would anybody trust a proven child molester like Harry Reid to pursue justice???

And of course the media will circulate Harry Reid’s charges all over the planet. Because it’s just like them to do a child molester’s bidding, isn’t it?

As just one other proof that Harry Reid is a hypocrite slime bag without shame, honor or decency, he is in fact one of the overwhelming number of politicians in “Congress who has voted against releasing his OWN tax returns.

Remember when Obama took his overseas tour prior to his 2008 election? You’d think he walked on water to get there, the way the mainstream media covered him. The Marxist Media is showing it has fangs for everyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do by going after Mitt Romney with the most idiotic charges of “gaffes.”

So here’s the latest in the neverending world of the endless Two Minutes Hate of liberals for whoever the latest iteration of “Republican candidate Emmanuel Goldstein” is:

“As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” the Republican presidential candidate told about 40 wealthy donors who ate breakfast at the luxurious King David Hotel.

Romney said some economic histories have theorized that “culture makes all the difference.”

“And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things,” Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the “hand of providence.” He said similar disparity exists between neighboring countries, like Mexico and the United States.

The ‘Palestinians’ are seething in response.

“It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people,” Erekat added. “He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority.”

A few points. First, Romney understated the disparity. Israel’s GDP is $31,000 and the ‘Palestinians’ GDP is $1,500 per person.

Second, assuming that ‘Palestinian’ GDP is in fact restrained by Israel (an assertion I will challenge below), for an indication of what the ‘Palestinian’ GDP might be without that restraint, one only has to look at other countries in the region. Jordan’s is $5,900. Egypt’s is $6,324, Syria’s is $5,262 and Lebanon’s is $15,600, all far below Israel’s $30,975. It seems far more likely that an unrestrained ‘Palestinian’ economy would be closer to any of those other countries than to Israel.

Finally, with all the seething about Israeli restraints on the ‘Palestinian’ economy (backed up by the politically motivated World Bank), there are many restraints on the ‘Palestinian’ economy that are self-imposed. These include the highly centralized nature of the ‘Palestinian’ economy, the amount spent on several competing ‘security services,’ and the culture that values ‘martyrdom’ over economic achievement and education.

So no, Romney’s assertion was not unreasonable and it wasn’t ‘racist.’

But you all knew that.

The explanation for where I was in the last several hours will be in the overnight music video, which resumes tonight.

WHITE HOUSE (AP) – The White House says it appears that Mitt Romney’s comments today in Jerusalem left some people “scratching their heads a little bit.”

Romney told a group of Jewish donors that their culture was part of what allowed them to be more economically successful than the Palestinians are.

A Palestinian official called it a “racist statement,” and said Romney should know that the Palestinian economy is hampered by an Israeli occupation. […]

But the spokesman added that having comments like this one analyzed for “nuance” is “one of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage.”

The comment from the White House in direct response to the terrorist Palestinians being angry was:

“One of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage, particularly when you’re traveling to such a sensitive part of the world, is that your comments are very closely scrutinized for meaning, for nuance, for motivation,” Earnest said, adding, “and it is clear that there are some people who have taken a look at those comments and are scratching their heads a little bit.”

You know, I’m firmly in the Obama foreign policy camp that holds that the more blatantly evil a regime is and the more that regime hates America, the more we should value and credit their anger toward us. Our historic ally Israel should hate us, and our historic enemy the Palestinians (who fought World War I against us before siding with the Nazis in World War II before they started killing civilians in terrorist attacks) should love us.

It’s those damned miserable piss holes like Israel that have stood by us for the last sixty years that we ought to trivialize.

Oops. Please excuse me for a moment…

Okay, I’m back. I had to throw out my tinfoil hat and I’m rational again.

We should all be agreeing with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi: “Those Money Grubbing Jews Just Want Lower Taxes.” C’mon. Obama and Pelosi know what them damn Jews are really like. After all, Obama’s reverend Jeremiah Wright spent his entire preaching career warning us that the Jews were evil. And how could the man who spent twenty years mentoring messiah Obama possibly be wrong? (See here for more on what the reverend that the man who is now president of the United States chose as his mentor believes).

To finish that last paragraph, the Obama administration lies about ABSOLUTELYEVERYTHING. It’s just too damned bad that we’re not living in the days of Cronkite when one lying but honest-sounding liberal could say, “And that’s the way it is” with his propaganda. And now, caught red-handed lying, the White House is forced to admit that yes, Obama is in fact the anti-Churchill who would have sold Britain out to the Nazis the way his hero Neville Chamberlain tried to do and he didn’t want to look at “the Bulldog” who saved the world from socialism.

Well, it turns out that Mitt Romney knows what he’s talking about and liberals are demagogue fools and Romney’s views were more than worthy of listening to:

LONDON – Local students and troops are getting free tickets to the London Games after blocks of prime seats were left empty at some of the Olympic venues, organizing chief Sebastian Coe said Sunday.

Coe responded to widespread criticism after the first full day of competition by predicting that seats left unused, largely by Olympics and sports officials, will stop being an issue as the games move through the preliminary rounds.

“It is obvious, some of those seats are not being used in the early rounds so that’s where we put the military in there. That’s why we have students and teachers in there,” Coe said at a briefing.

He declined to blame Olympic sponsors, whom he had earlier promised to “name and shame” if they did not use their allocations.

Sponsors including Coca-Cola and Visa defended how they used their quotas, which amount to eight per cent of the 8.8 million available tickets, Coe said.

The issue is sensitive for Olympics organizers and British sports fans after hundreds of thousands of people failed to get tickets in an initial public ballot.

“There is not a single person who thinks it is shambolic,” Coe insisted, adding that no one would object to free tickets for military personnel who “stepped up to the mark” this month to help solve a security staffing crisis at venues.

Yet broadcast images of such signature Olympic events as gymnastics and swimming revealed rows of empty seats for qualifying rounds on Saturday. Tennis matches at Wimbledon’s Centre Court were sparsely attended just weeks after the iconic Grand Slam event there was completely sold out.

Army personnel were attending gymnastics sessions Sunday morning at the North Greenwich Arena during down time from security duties.

“There are a whole bunch of the military actually sitting in those seats at the moment. We can and we have moved them in there,” Coe said.

Students and teachers from east London neighbourhoods also will get late calls for free tickets having already been accredited in a planned reallocation program. Some ticket holders will get upgrades inside venues, Coe added.

Some of the blame for the opening day embarrassment was falling on “accredited people” — including the Olympic family, athletes, and some sponsors and media, organizers said.

Coe said it was typical at the Olympics for sports and national team officials to be “dragged to any number of venues,” and be too busy to attend events in the opening days. “I don’t think you will be seeing this as an issue long-term during the games.”

Sponsors, whose legal rights to protect their brand at the Olympics often fuel criticism, also were defended by the organizing committee chairman.

“I am not sure naming and shaming is what we are into at the moment. Sponsors are turning up,” Coe said.

British Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt had said late Saturday that the no-shows probably corporate guests.

“We think it was accredited seats that belonged to sponsors,” Hunt said. “But if they’re not going to turn up, we want those tickets to be available for members of the public, because that creates the best atmosphere.”

Coca-Cola and Visa said they gave most of their allocated seats to prize winners in promotional offers.

Coca-Cola said its competitions allowed people “to choose the event they really wanted to attend.”

“We have also invited some long-standing partners, employees, and customers to attend the Games. We believe that usage levels of our tickets have been extremely high so far,” Coca-Cola said in a statement.

Visa said it made “great efforts to ensure that our ticket allocations are fully used.”

Organizers will continue to offer more opportunities for people to attend Olympics events.

Releasing tickets for walk-up sales allowed about 1,000 seats to be sold for gymnastics on Saturday, and the Wimbledon policy of “recycling” tickets has been adopted.

Coe said almost 300 people saw handball matches on Saturday by buying cheap tickets — 5 British pounds ($7.87) for adults, 1 pound ($1.57) for children — which were handed in for re-sale by the original holders upon leaving the venue.

It’s actually even WORSE than that. They’re not just GIVING tickets to soldiers; they are literally DRAFTING themto go to the Games so London can pretend their games aren’t “disconcerting.”

Spectators sit among empty seats during the men’s Group A volleyball match between Britain and Bulgaria at the London 2012 Olympic Games on Sunday.

LONDON – Britain was forced to bring in military personnel at short notice to provide security for the London Olympics — and has now done the same to help fill thousands of empty seats at several venues despite the massive public demand for tickets.

Many ordinary people who applied for tickets — in what was essentially a lottery – missed out and there were numerous complaints about the allocation process.

But the first day saw rows of empty seats at events including swimming, dressage, tennis, gymnastics and volleyball — according to reports in The Guardian and Telegraph newspapers — to the outrage of many, including U.K. Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Hunt said the sight of so many empty seats was “very disappointing,” according to ITV News. “I was at the Beijing Games, in 2008, and one of the lessons that we took away from that, is that full stadia create the best atmosphere, it’s best for the athletes, it’s more fun for the spectators, it’s been an absolute priority,” he added.

Usually you’ve got to “draft” soldiers to do things like get blown to bits fighting wars.

Gosh, every single liberal media outlet on the planet: THAT’S DISCONCERTING.

“You don’t need one of those to hunt,” they’ll say. As if they think rightwing Republicans are all like Jed Clampett out in the woods “shootin at some food.”

Obama says, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.” Let’s leave aside the fact that the AK-47s that actually ARE in the hands of soldiers are capable of fully automatic fire – which documents that Obama is one of the demagogues who are deliberately trying to confuse and mislead the American people into banning guns that have ALREADY been banned so he can fool them into supporting new restrictions on their constitutional rights. Another couple of questions arise: 1) Does Obama not know which military he commands? Because in point of fact only COMMUNIST soldiers use AK-47s. Have his Marxist economic policies left him confused, or is he simply that astonishingly ignorant about this issue he’s lecturing us about? 2) A further thing that leaves me scratching my head is why Obama thinks that gun laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals GIVEN THE FACT THAT “CRIMINALS” ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE BY DEFINITION WHO DON’T OBEY DAMN LAWS. This takes us to the dilemma that if you criminalize guns, only criminals will end up having them. Which is why in actual FACT liberal cities are far more violent than conservative cities. Especially the cities like Chicago that have the most restrictive gun laws which prevent law-abiding people from protecting themselves. And the only way to actually “ban” all of these “AK-47s” is to kick down every single damn door in America to confiscate them in what would be the most tyrannous day in the entire history of the republic (and keep reading to see below for WHY we have a right to keep and bear arms in the first place).

The reality is that the so-called “assault weapons” are excellent multi-purpose rifles, and many people who don’t have unlimited money particularly like these weapons for their multiple uses: you can use them for hunting; you can use them for home defense; you can use them to protect your rights as an American citizen against any who would seek to take those rights away; and boy are they ever fun to use for target shooting. That’s what my dad would call a “four-fer.” And add to all of that the fact that they are designed to be light weight. If I weren’t a rich liberal like the ones who are trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves while they drive around in armored cars with their armed security details, and I could only afford to buy one gun, I would want an assault weapon.

I’d like to see a garden-variety liberal try to protect their property from a mob of looters during a riot with the sort of guns they say everyone should be limited to. The term “neo-conservative” refers to “liberals who have been mugged by reality.” If you are one of the people who have been forced to protect what you have spent your life building from those who want to take it away from you and burn what they leave behind, and when you look through the smoke there are no police around to protect you, then you are one of the people who understand that “assault weapons” have a very useful purpose, indeed.

Many of your self-considered “broadly tolerant” liberals believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the black powder smoothbore muskets that were in vogue the day the Constitution was signed. Of course, there are plenty of liberals who would eagerly take even THOSE away from us. The fact of the matter is that those black powder smoothbores that every American was not only allowed to have but encouraged to have when the Constitution was written were the most modern military firearms available at the time. And the fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment – and think for a second why it would be the second most important thing the founding fathers believed in after they considered freedom of religion and freedom of speech – was a reaction against government tyranny. The founding fathers wanted the government to fear the people rather than for the people to fear the government – which has as a matter of documented historical FACT been a terrible consequent of many states that have taken away the right to keep and bear arms.

Which is why James Madison said, “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Which is why James Madison also said, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Which is why Noah Webster said, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

Which is why Alexander Hamilton said, “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”

Which is why Alexander Hamilton also said, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

Which is why Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Which is why Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Which is why Patrick Henry also said, “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

And which is why Patrick Henry also said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Which is why Samuel Adams said, “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”

Which is why Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Which is why Thomas Jefferson also said, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

And which is why Thomas Jefferson also said, “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

Which is why George Washington said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”

And which is why even the wise philosopher Aristotle said, “Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.”

It’s not like this is a matter of any question to any intelligent, educated person. The founding fathers were crystal clear that the people have the necessary right to keep and bear arms. And literally that any government that would try to take away those arms was a tyrannous government that in fact exemplified why arms should be in the hands of the people in the first place!

In fact, liberals, the very fact that you keep trying to use raw government power to take away our guns is why we should be all the more determined to keep our guns. Because according to the founding fathers you are the very people that we should be armed against.

Liberals love to assert that the 2nd Amendment never really applied to “the people” but rather to a “militia.” What is funny is that the very liberals who say that guns shouldn’t be in the hands of the people are also the most suspicious and intolerant of people in militias, too! Which underscores the fact that these liberals are truly anti-gun AND anti-Constitution and merely cynically offer whatever pretense will get them what they want. But leaving that aside, let’s example the argument:

The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Here’s what’s wrong with that view: To whom do the rights accorded in the 1st Amendment belong: to “the people” or to “a well regulated militia”?

If liberals want to be logically and morally and historically and grammatically consistent with their 2nd Amendment view about gun rights only belonging to militias, they must therefore concede that “the people” do not have the right to peaceably assemble or to petition the government for any redress of grievances (1st Amendment) or to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment and see also the rights guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments) – because only those in a “well regulated militia” would possess those rights and any other rights the Constitution claims for “the people.” It is completely arbitrary and in fact downright irrational thinking to suggest that “the people” means one thing for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment but something entirely different for every other usage of the exact same phrase in the very same document.

To return to what I previously stated that liberals become the very people that our founding fathers warned us about, in trying to take away rights that clearly belong to “the people” are by so doing denying and undermining every other right that similarly belongs to “the people.” And thank God I have guns as long as there are people who think that way.

Let me further mention a typical liberal view that guns are dangerous because “guns kill people.”

You could give me a nuclear bomb and I would do everything in my power to ensure that that nuclear bomb was used responsibly – which is to say that I would never use it in any situation I could possibly envision. You could give me a fully automatic machine gun to carry around with me at port arms and I would never mow down a crowd. Conservatives are people who can own guns and not murder innocent people. Liberals – by their own views – are apparently not such people. Rather, if they had a gun, that gun, being inherently dangerous and evil, would immediately begin to leach away at their feeble liberal intellects and their gutless liberal moral wills. Liberals affirm that they are bad people, weak people, who should not be entrusted with the responsibility that the founding fathers provided for free men.

This gets to the heart of the issue between liberals and conservatives. It comes down to something that John Adams said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In their views of guns and their attitude toward the 2nd Amendment, liberals implicitly if not explicitly admit that they are NOT the kind of people that the Constitution was made for; they are bad people. They are people who have no morality and no religion; and the Constitution and its protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights are therefore wholly inadequate for them.

Our Constitution was written to create “a new nation, conceived in liberty” as Lincoln would later say. It was to be a nation different from the nations of Europe, in which all men were equal and men were free to think and believe and decide for themselves. And Madison’s point was that only a moral and religious people could exercise the necessary self-restraint to have those kinds of freedoms. Amoral and irreligious people, on the other hand, could be controlled only by ever-increasing levels of totalitarian government tyranny.

George Washington – the father of our country – was even MOREstridently clear. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

And the point here is that liberals again and again on issue after issue reveal themselves to be the kind of people that George Washington and the founding fathers of this country would have labelled “traitors.” They are NOT patriots; they are men and women who “labor to subvert these great pillars” such as morality and religion and, yes, the 2nd Amendment protections provided for “the people.”

Liberals have worked hard for the last fifty years to take away our morality and our religion. In so doing, they have given us the very violence that is now spiralling out of control. Liberals are the kind of people who have taken away prayer. Liberals are the kind of people who have refused to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments because “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” and God-as-Government forbid that children be allowed to do something like that. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed godless abortion upon society to the tune of 54 MILLION innocent human beings butchered since 1973. Liberals are the kind of people who have destroyed fatherhood, because according to liberals fathers did not father children, but strictly non-human lumps of biological goop such that they should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever as to whether their own babies be allowed to even live. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed pornography on us because liberal justices are moral idiots who are morally incapable of differentiating between art and XXX-rated sex movies. Liberals are the kind of people who imposed no-fault divorce without limit or condition upon us because breaking up families is more important than asking couples who took a vow to one another under God to work to resolve their differences. Liberals are the kind of people who turned marriage itself into a perverted mockery by saying that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman be adulterated to include whatever the hell politically correct understanding depraves the minds of the left next.

These are the people that George Washington said, “These people are NOT patriots.” These are the people that the founding fathers said we needed to be armed to protect ourselves against as they take away the God-given rights of “the people” to protect ourselves against the very tyranny they continually seek to impose upon us.

If any liberal wants to regulate the guns which the founding fathers intended to protect ourselves against the very sort of tyranny that liberals continually seek to impose, let them first categorically affirm the right of the people to keep and bear arms. By that, I mean require an Amendment to the Bill of Rights that for all time specifically states that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the same people who have ever other right accorded to “the people” be allowed to be armed and to possess arms, with the further condition that ANY official whether he or she be a politician, a judge or a bureaucrat be IMMEDIATELY removed from his or her office with the forfeiture of all pay, all benefits and all responsibilities if he or she ever try to take away these rights from any law-abiding American citizen.

Until that day, “gun control” is a zero-sum game, with every limitation and restriction taking us one step closer to taking away ALL of our rights while those who believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically the 2nd Amendment, receive NOTHING in return. As long as there is one liberal who has any influence over the American people in any chamber of politics, any chamber of law, or any bureaucracy, who wants to take away our rights, the people need to continue to be armed to prevent that liberal from depriving them of their freedom.

If you as a liberal think I’m crazy to say that Democrats want to take away our guns, well, then, please join me in taking that issue I keep demagoguing off the table. Demand that your party sponsor and vote for that constitutional amendment. And then people like me will be forced to shut up, won’t we?

Liberals constantly demonize conservatives as the obstacles preventing every single nut from shooting somebody; I point the finger right back at them: because they are untrustworthy negotiating partners with too many having the open agenda that I described above. As long as we have a president of the United States who appoints judges who say that citizens have a right to keep arms, but not to bear them – or to similarly brazenly deny the Constitution, you aint getting NOTHIN’ from me. And frankly, if you don’t mind my saying so, you’re a slimebag for every trying.

When the 2nd Amendment as our founding fathers intended it is firmly engrained in American society once and for all time, I believe liberals will be surprised at how many conservatives will join them in enacting reasonable restrictions that will limit the abuse of guns.

Dumbass, why dont you consider the MASSIVE drop in revenues due to the economic cliff the US fell off due to Bush’s policys. The downslide started mid 2007, sorry new president takes the helm in jan. 2009! Ship was sinking, obama just trying to bail out the water with resistance from all Republicans ! I hope gets on so we can blame everything on him…

But now Obama’s the president and the fact that gas prices have averaged FAR more during Obama’s presidency (gas prices have averaged $3.25 under Obama versus only $2.33 under Bush) isn’t Obama’s fault at all. The same thing is true of our spending and debt and the same damn thing is true of liberal hoity-toity issues like Gitmo. At some point every liberal skull will explode from trying to contain all the contradictions.

I wrote an article right after the election that pretty much sums up my views: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.” It comes down to this: by your own measure shall ye be measured. You don’t get to attack Bush and Republicans for eight years by going after Bush like rabid pit bulls attacking bloody meat and then get sanctimonious with us. Dumbass. Especially when by any measure: GDP growth, jobs, household wealth, deficits, spending, debt, consumer confidence, or any other measure, the economy did FAR better during the eight years of Bush than it EVER has under Obama.

2) Do you know what sane people do (my bad – of COURSE you don’t know what sane people do!) if they have less revenue? THEY SPEND LESS, YOU DUMBASS. But somehow your messiah never got the sanity memo so instead of spending less he imposed spending after spending measure and imposed levels of bureaucrats and regulators that this nation has never seen. You people are like the millionaire’s son who pisses away his inheritance and then says, “Well, it’s not like that means I’ve got to spend less or anything; I’m ENTITLED to spend more. I think I’ll go buy a Ferrari and crash it after a drunken party And then I’ll celebrate ‘my recovery’ by buying another Ferrari.”

Even if everything you said was true – and it’s not – we should be spending LESS. But what is your messiah doing? He’s spending three times more and blaming Bush. That is morally and rationally insane.

Liberals have a GSA-view of the universe. But as Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”

3) Then there’s the fact that Democrats were nearly TOTALLY to blame for imposing all of the idiotic conditions that led to your “Massive drop in revenues.” “Bush’s policies?” Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it collapsed, you abject dumbass. Bush began trying back in 2003, and even the New York Slimes records that conservative economists were predicting back in 1999 that these stupid and immoral Democrat policies would explode the economy:

New York Times, Sep 30, 1999: “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. […]

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Barney Frank stated:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., warned that the Social Security Disability Insurance program is on pace to go bankrupt in four years, after the Congressional Budget Office reported that the amount of benefits provided through the program will increase about 70 percent over the next ten years.

“Today’s report from the Congressional Budget Office reveals a dramatic increase in applications and awards for Social Security disability, placing the disability trust fund on a fast-track to insolvency in just four years,” Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement on the report.

According to the CBO, the disability trust fund provided $119 billion to 8.3 million workers. CBO expects that number to jump to $204 billion — an increase of 71 percent, approximately — as the number of disabled workers and dependents receiving money increases to 12.3 million by 2022.

Republicans on the budget committee noted that disability claims have increased more quickly than job creation in the last three months.

“It is clear there is a great need to distinguish between proper and improper disability claims, and to better incentivize and find acceptable work for those who are able,” Sessions said. “Today only 1 percent of Social Security disability recipients ever return to work.”

This is an alarming trend. The United States, increasingly, is becoming a nation where more and more Americans are collecting government checks than finding jobs. And, considering only 1 percent of Social Security disability recipients ever return to the workforce (according to Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions), this disturbing tendency will have significant and perhaps sweeping implications. These numbers also come on the heels of The One’s decision last week — as Guy explained yesterday — to unilaterally dismantle then-President Clinton’s historic (and successful!) welfare reforms of the 1990s. This, in effect, takes a giant ax to the legislation’s work requirements, creating a disincentive for welfare recipients to seek “real” employment opportunities, and thus fostering more government dependency. Sadly, too, more Americans are on food stamps than ever before (about 45 million), and Congress seems woefully unable – or unwilling — to work across party lines and solve the nation’s fiscal challenges.

This is a crucial time for our country — after all, this year’s presidential contest could be the most important election of our lifetime — and we need a chief executive who espouses policies that will reignite the entrepreneurial spirit of the Americans people, thereby creating economic opportunity in this country for the tens of millions of Americans who are unemployed, underemployed or have stopped looking for work. Indeed, there are stark differences between the two candidates running for president this year — not the least of which is President Obama’s jarring conviction that entrepreneurial success in America derives not from hardworking individuals, but from government institutions. This is a philosophy we simply cannot afford for another four years.

The economy under Obama is rather like the Russian Front under Hitler: it’s come to a point where the only way out of the hellhole is to shoot yourself in the leg to get the hell out of what is very obviously a building disaster under a demonic turd of a leader. Because that’s exactly what’s going on right now because of this failed presidency.

“If this were just our candidates versus their candidates, I would sign an affidavit that we would pick up 35 seats” so says Congressman Steve Israel the Democrat in charge of getting the House back. This false bravado sums up a big part of the Democrats’ problem: not being able to acknowledge there is a problem.

“The overall dynamic favors Republicans, who look poised to maintain their hold on the House. More Democrats than Republicans have retired in districts where they were endangered, and more Republicans benefited from the decennial redistricting, leaving the Democrats with too small a cushion of Teflon incumbents as they try to regain a majority in the House. Of the 80 races viewed as most competitive by The New York Times, based on polls and interviews with independent analysts, 32 are leaning Republican, 23 are leaning Democratic and 25 are tossups.”

The reality is that these numbers indicate the GOP is poised to win over 50 of these race and maybe more. Because of the cumulative effect of both elections this would be worse than 2010 for the Democrats who could see their numbers fall to the fewest since 1931.

Why this will happen

With less than four months to go compared to 2008 conservative Republican enthusiasm is 16 points higher and liberal Democrat enthusiasm is 22 points lower.

Democrats from local candidates to Barack Obama have no coherent plausible message.

Together they have made America sick so what can they say?

They can’t even keep their “We hate” list straight. They’ve tried to get their base to hate Bain Capital, but couldn’t make their charges stick because they are lies. They’re still trying to get their base to hate the TEA party but every charge they make is a lie so it falls flat. Now they are telling their Christian base to hate Christian doctrine and love Democrats which is also doomed to failure.

There is no group Obama lost in 2008 that he is winning now and no group (not even African Americans) he won in 2008 that he is doing better with today. Now that voters have a clearer idea of what he is all about, Barack Obama will be an even bigger drag on his Party this year than he was in 2010 when the GOP took 63 seats in a landslide not seen since 1938.

Americans are NOT going to the polls to vote against Barack Obama then vote for a Democrat in their Congressional district as Mister Israel fantasizes. Come November Democrat policies will sink them in large numbers.

To read about how hypocritical the Democrats have been over the past 200 years. Get you copy of Coach’s new book Crooks Thugs and bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party available at:http://crooksthugsandbigots.com

Here is the map the New York Times created. It is interactive if you go to the article available (again) here:

I admit, it might be my eyes are messed up or something. But I don’t see the blue tidal wave of adoration for Obama. I see the red of a bunch or Republicans rising up in righteous outrage.

We’re seeing a lot of polls coming out that apparently favor Obama. They have two major weaknesses:

1) Flawed polling methodology. Recently we had a poll that had Obama up by six points over Romney. What you have to dig a little more into is the fact that the poll had a sampling distribution that favored Democrats by 11 points over Republicans. That’s a 2008 model. Well, please understand: 2008 went bye-bye for Obama. He’s simply not going to have the sort of overwhelming Democrat tide that he had in 2008 – and any polling methodology that assumes he will is deeply flawed and in fact biased.

2) Voter turnout. I’m not hearing predictions that Democrats will vote for Romney in substantial numbers the way we had “Reagan Democrats.” The question is, how energized are Democrats to show up and vote? The fact of the matter is that voter enthusiasm was ALL in Democrats’ favor in 2008 – and the fact of the matter is that it is now a mirror image with the same levels of enthusiasm now favoring Republicans. The most heavily Democrat voter groups such as blacks and youth are already showing a substantial enthusiasm gap which predict that they will NOT turn out the way they did in 2008.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi says Democratic members should stay home and campaign in their districts rather than go to the party’s national convention in North Carolina.

“I’m not encouraging anyone to go to the convention, having nothing to do with anything except I think they should stay home, campaign in their districts, use their financial and political resources to help them win their election,” Pelosi said in an exclusive interview for POLITICO Live’s “On Congress,” a new weekly show to be streamed live on POLITICO’s website and broadcast on NewsChannel 8 on Wednesdays.

Someone might be able to correct me, but I find this historic. I don’t believe any party leader has ever called for that party to abandon their own national convention.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three weeks before the Democratic National Convention this summer, union leaders plan to hold their own “shadow convention” to promote labor issues they believe too many elected officials are ignoring.

The union gathering in Philadelphia on Aug. 11 was inspired by the anger many labor officials felt after Democrats decided to stage their nominating convention in North Carolina, a right-to-work state that is the least unionized in the country.

Most unions are still planning to attend the Charlotte, N.C., convention, but more than a dozen are boycotting it. Other unions are not spending big money on the convention as they have in the past.

Prying open members’ fists is an election year ritual for leaders of both parties, but Democrats contend this time around has been particularly frustrating. Facing a team of deep-pocketed Republican outside groups poised to swamp them in TV ad spending — and with the party not benefiting from the kind of wave conditions that lifted Republicans two years ago — Democrats say the stinginess of their lawmakers has left them severely weakened as the fall campaign season approaches.

Democrats say they’ve tried just about everything to get their colleagues to open their wallets. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has told members that unless they pay their dues in full, they won’t get to partake in the committee’s Democratic National Convention package, complete with access to much sought-after hotel rooms and parties. And in early June, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to shame her members into giving, distributing notes to each of them with a request for cash and asking them if they are part of “the team.”

The push hasn’t had much success. As of June 30, 64 Democrats — around one-third of the entire caucus — hadn’t paid anything to the DCCC, according to a party document provided to POLITICO. Another 109 members had paid only a portion of what they owe in dues, which are calculated based on seniority and committee assignments.

In June, GOP members flooded the National Republican Congressional Committee with nearly $6.4 million. The DCCC secured just $1.8 million from Democratic lawmakers.

THAT is a Democrat enthusiasm gap. This isn’t a happy, enthused, energized party saying let’s work together to win with and for our messiah. This is a bunch of professional politicians who see a lot of numbers that the rest of us don’t get to see who are saying in several important ways, “It’s every DemocRAT for himself.”

To other factors promise to make what Democrats are already seeing as really, really bad even WORSE:

1) Money. Obama raised more money in 2008 than any politician in the entire history of the world. Guess what’s happened since? Obama has alienated and frankly enraged many of the deep pockets that he won in 2008 with his lies and empty promises and meaningless rhetoric. The advantage is now on Romney’s side. Obama is going deep into the hole now to spend money while Romney is unable to open the floodgates until he is the official GOP nominee, but come August Romney will be able to release the hounds on Obama. Obama has been attempting – apparently without much success – to demonize Romney and “frame” him before he is able to spend money to answer all the lies in all the bogus Obama ads. If Romney is able to weather this storm, the worm will begin to turn come August after the GOP Convention.

2) The economy. Job growth is slowing to so far below the threshold needed just to keep up with population growth it isn’t funny. We just saw that GDP growth is so meager that we are very close to stall speed and a dreaded double-dip recession. Consumer confidence is plunging. Record numbers of Americans are on food stamps compared to any other time in US history and we’ve got more Americans filing for disability than we’ve got Americans getting jobs. This is by far and away the WEAKEST and most miserable “recovery” in US history because Obama’s policies are so wrong and he simply will not LET the economy recover.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the economy will get any better between now and election day and damn GOOD reason to believe it will be getting WORSE. Nouriel Roubini, an economist who is famous for having predicted the 2008 economic implosion, believes that the economy will get WORSE. Economist Peter Morici is writing about a soon-coming economic collapse.

That’s the real record Obama is running on: from bad to worse.

Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, there is absolutely no way the CIA and the SEALs could have got Obama. Why? Because getting bin Laden was a miracle, and only messiah Obama could possibly have ever performed this miracle. Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, the US economy would still be losing 700,000 jobs a month, and only messiah Obama had the superhuman wisdom to lead America to the worst “recovery” in the history of the nation. The only way “pathetic” can be viewed as “glorious” is if we ignore the reality that 1) no recession has EVER lasted forever and it wouldn’t have lasted forever if George Bush were president, either, and that 2) that most US recessions last less than 18 months with 3) recoveries generally being the strongest when the recessions have been deepest. Which is to say that if Obama wasn’t an abject failure we’d have GDP growth of 10 percent the way we did when Ronald Reagan was running en route to a landslide re-election.

Obama has to ignore all of that. He has to say, “This economic holocaust that you see all around you is really a Utopia. And the Promised Land is right around the corner, ye herd of mindless animals.”

All that said, I’m not going to predict that Mitt Romney wins in a landslide. Or even that he wins at all.

Why? Because this is God damn America, just like I told you it would be back in November 4 of 2008. God damn America is not a land of wise and good people; no, it is a land of fools and wicked people. And fools and wicked people pursue their own destruction until God gives it to them the way they deserve.

If we re-elect Obama – and 2008 proved there are more than enough fools and wicked people to pull it off – we will get the fools’ end that we demand God give us.

It’s going to come fast, too. Because Taxmageddon is coming. And given that the Republicans are going to retake the House, if Obama wins, every American will find himself or herself paying taxes right out of their ass. And given that pretty much every economist agrees that “taxmageddon” will amount to a double-dip recession, the re-election of Obama will amount to a double-dip recession. And America will deserve it in spades.

Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes
By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 15, Washington PostDemocrats are making increasingly explicit threats about their willingness to let nearly $600 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest households.

Either everybody should get a tax cut or everybody should get taxed up the wazoo. If you think that somebody else ought to have their taxes raised, YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED. By the measure that ye judged, YE shall be judged. You want someone else to pay so you can skate? You should be taxed until you can’t feed your kids; you should be taxed until you can’t make your house payments; you should be taxed until your car is repossessed. All of you wicked fools should get both barrels of what you want to inflict on other people.

The only great thing about Mitt Romney is that he is not Barack Hussein Obama.

I’m not enthusiastic about Mitt Romney in any other respect. His entire career is of being a liberal-leaning moderate – contrary to the demonic Obama ads that depict him as some kind of fire-breathing rightwing conservative fanatic. But I am TOTALLY enthusiastic about ridding this nation of the scourge of the worst president in our entire history. And I will crawl out of my death bed through broken glass to vote for Romney for that very reason.

If you use my search engine to explore my use of the word “fascist,” you’ll see I “liberally” apply it to liberalism. And to Obama and his liberal thugs. What the Obama administration did with DOMA – passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Clinton – and what he has since done with illegal immigration in an incredibly illegal and cynical attempt to win the Hispanic vote are just a couple of your more obvious examples.

The thing is, I’m completely right to do so, and liberals keep proving that I’m completely right.

Chick-fil-A is the latest (well, there are a thousand examples every day, so let’s just say it’s the latest mass media example) example of liberal fascism.

Let me first just ask this question: when was the last time a religious conservative mayor went after a business for its anti-BIBLICAL views???

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.

“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”

Ald. Joe Moreno (1st) is using the same argument to block Chick-fil-A from opening its first free-standing restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood.

“Same sex marriage, same-sex couples — that’s the civil rights fight of our time. To have those discriminatory policies from the top down is just not something that we’re open to. …We want responsible businesses,” Moreno said.

“If he’s in the business of selling chicken in Chicago, he should be in the business of having equal rights for everyone. Period …. If it looks like a chicken, talks like a chicken, walks like a chicken, it’s a chicken. If you’re saying you don’t respect the values and rights of same-sex couples, that trickles down through the organization. … That’s paramount to the way the company behaves.”

Don Perry, vice president of corporate public relations for Chick-fil-A, and senior manager Jerry Johnston could not be reached for comment on the opposition from the mayor and Moreno.

Chick-fil-A has already obtained zoning approval to build a restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston. But, the company still needs City Council approval to divide the land and purchase a lot near Home Depot.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy was quoted last week as saying he was “guilty as charged” for supporting, what he called the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy was quoted as saying.

Appearing on the Ken Coleman Show, Cathy was further quoted as saying, “I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know, [saying], ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about.”

Cathy’s comments have infuriated gay rights activists across the nation, prompting their political allies to take a stand against the company.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has said Chick-fil-A “doesn’t belong in Boston” because of Cathy’s discriminatory stance.

On Wednesday, the tag team of Emanuel and Moreno joined the chorus, citing Cathy’s anti-gay views. The only question is whether they have a legal leg to stand on.

“Absolutely not,” said former Ald. William Banks (36th), the longtime chairman of the City Council’s Zoning Committee who presided over a massive re-write of the city’s 1957 zoning ordinance.

“Any alderman can hold a development issue for virtually any purpose. But if he’s doing it for the wrong reasons — if he’s citing a gay rights issue — there’s nothing illegal about that.”

Moreno said he has an ace in his back pocket if he runs into legal trouble: traffic and congestion issues caused by the store that have been the subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations for the last nine months.

San Francisco Mayor Ewdin Lee also joined the chorus opposing Chick-fil-A with a tweet saying: ‘Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.’

What was Chick-fil-A’s crime that they should be punished and deprived of their rights? The CEO stated that he believed that marriage was the union between one man and one woman and Chick-fil-A was “caught” having exercised its 1st Amendment right to donate to a pro-family cause that supported that view of marriage.

Fascists hate Chick-fil-A for that.

Liberals have repeatedly claimed that Republicans are hoping the economy is bad so that they can win in November. But it is LIBERALS who want job destruction and who do not want economic growth. Can Chick-fil-A create jobs in Boston or Chicago? Uh-uh, they can’t. Can Chick-fil-A grow and help the economy grow? Not if Democrats have anything to do with it, they can’t.

Anti-biblical views. I brought that up. What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Genesis 19:4-5,12-13: Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” … Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.”

Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:18, 22, 25-27:For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. … Professing to be wise, they became fools … Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Is it okay if Bible-believing politicians and government officials freely persecute anybody who holds an “anti-biblical view”??? I hope every liberal out there is saying, “You’re damn right it’s okay!” Because otherwise you people are hypocrites.

If any lefty wants to say that’s happened, let’s see it: let’s see the conservative mayor who has said, “Those who hold anti-biblical views discriminate against Christians. Such people don’t represent what our city stands for and we’re going to punish them with the power of government.”

Just imagine the damn outcry if a conservative mayor punished gay people the way Boston and Chicago attacked a Christian business. You want to bet that Barack Obama and his attacking lawdog Eric Holder wouldn’t be all over that major like the stink on poop that they already are?

Quite a few people have praised Chick-fil-A for its business model. Allow me to criticize it: they ought to shake the filthy dust of Boston and Chicago from their feet and create jobs and build the economy in places that deserve to have jobs and economic growth.

We don’t have a Chick-fil-A in my own area (although locating in the Palm Springs area would be out of the frying pan and into the fire, wouldn’t it?), but if we did I’d be a Chick-fil-A-eating fool to thank them for being one of the few businesses that actually stands for something other than PC or profit. I used to eat at one in Anaheim and it’s gooooood.

And as yet another example of liberal fascism, the same damn fascist liberals who are trying to ban Chick-fil-A are doing everything they can to grant more permits for more Islamofascist mosques. Liberals self-righteously say, “We don’t support or endorse their beliefs or practices but we have a constitutional obligation to support their freedoms. But Chick-Fil-A fascism proves once for all that it isn’t any “moral principle” of freedom that liberals are standing on. Because the left would have called for Rahm Emanuel, Thomas Menino, and all the Democrats and liberals who joined their call for punitive action against Chick-Fil-A to RESIGN if that were the case. No, rather, vicious terrorists fanatical Muslims are (for obvious reasons to anyone who understands that the left is fascist) the ONLY religious group that liberals stand behind.

If you’re a liberal, you’re a fascist. And the more liberal you are, the more freaking fascist you are. The fact that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel are still in office after defecating all over the 1st Amendment is proof of that pudding.

ABC’s The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren’t in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: “anyone who eats S–t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ”.

This came after she told the restaurant chain to suck an appendage she doesn’t have.

This outbreak of hate was retweeted by comedian Joe Rogan, who recently hosted a newfangled version of “Fear Factor” on NBC. Shortly after her get-cancer tweet, she doubled down:

“off to grab a s–it fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran.”

Meanwhile, fascist liberals are seeking to forcibly close Chick-Fil-A restraurants at at least two state university campuses:

Liberals hate free speech, hate the Constitution, hate human life. They also hate businesses and jobs and even taxes – given that the one Chicago Chick-Fil-A created 97 jobs and pays taxes. Now liberals clearly don’t believe in God; but whatever replaces God for them – I suppose it’s ‘Government forbid!’ – that we let in a business that will pay taxes and create jobs. Again, what they REALLY want is to be able to control everything and reward their friends and punish their enemies and decide who wins and who loses. That’s the quintessential nature of fascism.

Years back there was a car called the Chevy Vega. It had a nice looking body, but was built with a gutless, underpowered, cheap engine. What could have been a real nice car and even a bold step in the direction toward smaller and more fuel efficient cars that history shows that GM needed to go in was instead one of the worst cars in the history of GM.

The same principle was carried out more professionally with the Shelby Cobra: you take a little car body and cram a 427 inch Corvette RAT engine in it and you get something special.

Heck, it works great with cars; why not try it with dogs?

There are all kinds of breeds of dogs out there, of course. And then when you add in the fact that dogs have a way of ignoring the rules and creating their own breeds of “mutts,” well, it truly takes all kinds to make up a world.

I’m here to talk about what happens when you take a “big block Labrador” and put it into a “compact Dachshund body.” You get this:

Aint she pretty?

I love dogs, and have always found them to be incredibly beautiful creatures to go along with the fact that they are world-class athletes. If dogs were allowed to compete in the Olympics, they’d end up with pretty much all of the medals for pretty much all of the track and field and swimming events.

I’ve always particularly loved the big dog breeds, such as the Rottweilers that I’ve had. There is simply nothing like watching a big dog running with the big dogs.

But this 42 lb Dachshund-Labrador mix has truly opened my eyes to the middleweight class of dogdom. In the case of this one, she’s basically an “atomic Dachshund,” complete with webbed feet like a Lab, a weight that’s right near the middle between a 20 lb Dachshund and a 60 lb Labrador Retriever female, and legs that are about twice as long as a Dachshund’s but about 3/4s as long as a Labrador’s.

This is a dog that might have happened “by accident,” or might have been the result of “designer breeding.” When I finally figured out what my little darling was, I discovered that “Dachsadors” are a designer breed. You’ll have to “ask an expert” how you breed a Dachshund with a Labrador. And if you find out, please tell me so I can finally have an answer for all the people who have asked me just that very question.

She is a high-speed, low-drag low-earth orbiting ballistic missile system when she’s in full-pursuit of a rabbit or squirrel. And this is a dog that has now caught a jackrabbit – and believe me that aint exactly easy! – in addition to a few cottontails (it turns out neither rabbit species particularly like to be caught and literally SCREAM until I make her put them down). She’s got a combination of speed and agility that has to be seen to be believed. I call it torque; she’s got those powerful leg muscles and that short running stroke to get going fast REAL quick. It is not unusual at all to see her run with both sets of legs parallel to the ground at the same time. It’s almost like she’s flying, and all she needs is a little superdog cape:

She’s a very athletic thing that loves to jump as much as she loves to just plain flat-out haul ass:

I often just find myself simply admiring her exquisite musculature and shape:

I find her to be a beautifully muscled and beautifully proportioned dog. I love watching her trot along so easily and gracefully with her beautiful wheaton coat gliding over her ribs and muscles:

And of course she has been since the day we brought her home as a little puppy:

She’s just been a tremendous little dog, and I love her dearly.

A few extra details about her:

She is without question the most joyful dog I have ever been around. She will wag her tail if you just LOOK at her. She loves to play and can keep herself quite entertained by throwing one of her toys into the air and catching it. And frequently she’ll just get a little bee in her bonnet and start racing through the house at top speed with a happy-to-be-alive gleam in her eyes. She’s got a few different courses to race on. And the more I laugh the more she runs. When I adopted her, she was a nearly 10 week-old puppy in a glass cage at a shelter, and had been in the cage for close to 2 weeks. When she was introduced to her back yard she ran like a happy little fool and just never really got over her love of running.

She is also the most remarkable dog I’ve ever seen in remembering where things were and any kind of change. If anything in the house gets moved for any reason, she KNOWS about it and zeroes right in on it. If she’s out in the desert and something new got blown or placed or built or dumped anywhere near her domain, she is instantly aware of it.

And she likes to watch TV more than any dog I’ve ever heard of – especially if there are animals on. I’ve had on the Westminster dog show and she has watched enraptured for a good half hour straight. When one of her “shows” comes on in the form of a commercial, she recognizes it by the music jingle and looks up on cue just when the dogs appear. She will wag her tail at certain times, perk her ears at certain moments, etc. She loves to watch horses, but is quite interested in just about anything that has just about any kind of animal.

So why not put them together? What you end up with is a medium-sized dog of excellent temperament and intelligence. And if you really want a Labrador Retriever but can’t have a dog that large, well, why not shrink it down?

The people who know dogs that look at my little darling see a Labrador face from the front and a Dachshund face from the side. And I always enjoy being around dog lovers who will come over and tell me they’ve never seen anything like her, and how beautiful she is and what a great shape she has.

I’m glad she’s female because while my Rottweilers were “macho dogs,” this one is definitely “daddy’s little girl.”

P.S. I mentioned that I’m a Rottweiler lover. It’s amazing how different dogs can be and how wonderful they are at being the incredible things they were bred to be. My last Rottweiler was HUGE by Rottweiler standards – standing nearly 32″ at the shoulder (in the realm of Great Dane height!), weighing in at nearly 200 lbs, and standing about 6’6″ on his hind legs (I’m 6’2″ and he could jump up with his front paws over my shoulder and look me right in the eye – and he was leaning at an angle). He was the product of very large parents which led to a 3-puppy litter that allowed him to get as big as the genes from already large parents would allow him to get. He was incredibly smart and impossibly strong. That dog could easily knock a big, strong man down and that man wouldn’t get up unless and until that Rott wanted to let him get up. Before him, we had two brothers who were what we called “muttweilers” being the result of a purebred female and the neighbor’s 3/4 Rott-1/4 German Shepherd who jumped the fence. I used to go backpacking in the Willamette National Forest and reuglarly went on 3 day outings. I would hike from 10-15 miles a day, depending on the leg, while the dogs chased each other off the leash. I kid you not, those dogs would run at least 150 miles a day each of the three days. No human being who ever lived could have begun to do what those dogs did EASILY. One year I took one of them to visit my parents and my father and I went hiking. That dog loved to walk ahead, but he didn’t know which way we would go at one point where the trail split. And when my dad took the uphill path, the only way the dog could get ahead of him was to jump up a rocky outcropping that we figured was easily 8′ high. That Rottweiler mix took one step back and MADE that jump; at the very top he had to pull himself up with his front legs with an effort my dad found as amazing as the jump itself.

Dogs are just amazing, aren’t they? And the only thing they do better than their many amazing feats of speed, agility, leaping, strength, endurance, etc., etc., is be the best companions in the world.

This is Obama’s “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” as it matriculates into our tax policy.

You need to go back and understand Obama’s argument. What he was very clearly saying is that government basically built everything that allows businesses to succeed. And therefore businesses – which owe their success to government – should pay more taxes.

Government built the roads that murderers used en route to their murders. Government built the schools that rapists used on their way to becoming rapists. You can’t take these things that EVERYBODYbenefits from and which only exist in the first place because TAXPAYERS built them for everybody to benefit from and then claim that they in any way, shape or form account for the success of businesses who got where they got by their hard work. The argument that Obama offered and which the Democrat Party accepted lock, stock and barrel suffers from vicious infinite regress: Government does things, which justifies more govenment. More government does even more things, which justifies still MORE government. Still MORE government does still more things, which justifies yet more government. And so on ad naseum.

The vicious regress is one of the most glaringly obvious results of poor thinking in logic and philosophy; and yet a vicious infinite regress literally forms the epicenter of the entire liberal worldview.

Anyone but a FOOL ought to immediately understand that the things that Government has provided are NOT the reason that business owners succeed. Because not only criminals but every slacker on welfare ALSO uses schools and roads and government loans and the Internet. The reason that businesses succeed is because successful business owners had dreams, worked hard to fulfill those dreams, had good ideas, demonstrated individual responsibility and took individual initiative, made difficult choices, saved and invested while others spent, etc.

And Barack Obama as an individual and the Democrat Party as a political group are nakedly evil for trying to falsely claim credit for the success of business and saying to them, “You OWE us for your success.” But regardless of the smokescreens and lies they now blather in front of every microphone, the ugly, diseased cat is out of the bag. When Government says, “We should be able to redistribute your wealth because we made all of your success possible, they end up punishing wealth creation and success and undermining the economy of everyone. Except the slackers.

Yesterday, the Senate narrowly voted (51-48) to raise taxes on 1.2 million small businesses, which will likely kill more than 700,000 jobs at a time when nearly 13 million Americans are out of work. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Jim Webb (D-VA) joined all Republicans in bipartisan opposition to the tax hike.

This is President Obama’s economic plan. This is what he asked Congress to do. And he recently told a fundraising crowd that his economic plan has been working.

But Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, said yesterday that “the economy is not growing fast enough,” acknowledging that “unemployment is very high.” “The institutions with authority should be doing everything they can to try to make economic growth stronger,” he said.

The President’s plan, now endorsed by the Democratic majority in the Senate, has little chance of going anywhere in the House of Representatives. But it has put the 51 Senators who want to raise taxes on record.

Perhaps the biggest lie in the tax debate is that this vote affects only “the rich.” That’s simply not true. Many small businesses, known as flow-through businesses, pay their taxes through the individual income tax. Ernst and Young estimates that these types of businesses “employ 54% of the private sector work force.” This tax hike squarely hits 1.2 million of these businesses that hire workers and have incomes above $200,000.

Rather than punishing just “the rich,” as Heritage’s Curtis Dubay notes, “By pinpointing his tax increase on incomes over $200,000, President Obama has maximized the detrimental impact that his tax increase would have on job creation.”

The Ernst and Young study on the impact of this tax hike showed that it could kill more than 700,000 jobs. This isn’t surprising, since the businesses it targets are some of the country’s most robust job creators. But it is surprising that a majority of the Senate would go along with this plan when the country is suffering from 8.2 percent unemployment.

As if that weren’t enough, the Senate’s actions would also raise the death tax from 35 percent to 55 percent. This confiscatory rate would hit small businesses and family farms exceptionally hard. Dubay explains:

The death tax is often portrayed as a tax that only rich heirs pay. In reality, the death tax hits family-owned businesses hardest. These businesses are valuable on paper because they have many assets that they need to make and sell their products. But the businesses’ book values are not representative of the families’ liquid assets. When a family member passes on, these families often have to sell all or part of the business to raise the cash to pay the death tax. This slows the growth of these businesses and in some cases forces them to lay off existing workers.

The Senate’s vote means we are no closer to preventing Taxmageddon, the nearly $500 billion tax increase scheduled to hit Americans on January 1. It is difficult to imagine the economy sustaining such a blow. Families will be hit with an average tax increase of more than $4,100 next year if Congress allows this to go forward. Instead of preventing this calamity, the Senate voted to raise taxes. It simply boggles the mind.

We’re going backward while Obama demagogues and exploits the small business owners who built this country far more than bigger “Government” – which itself was an anathema to the founding fathers who wrote our Constitution – ever did.